Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[Cecilie1200]

But have you ever heard of them questioning the original owner about some shooting it was used in?
I haven't.

We know more responsible people most likely so we don't have any personal experience with that. But the fact of the matter is they always make attempts to trace the gun to the suspect. Successful? Probably only part of the time. But if their research leads them to only 10% of the murderers, that's 10% more put in prison we don't have to worry about.

I'm just saying if a pistol is used in a shooting during a carjacking or a robbery, the cops don't go to the guy who bought it 8 years ago and then had it stolen from his truck, and begin treating him as a suspect in the shooting; that doesn't happen.
Unless they actually recover the gun, they can't trace it at all, and they know damn good and well the guy in the suburbs who bought it back when, wasn't involved in some gang beef shooting at a waffle house, or a robbery.

They don't IF they know it was stolen. Without a police report stating that it was, they have no reason to think he doesn't still have it.

It's kinda like cars. If a car is used in a hit-and-run, and the cops find it abandoned a couple of miles away, they're gonna contact the guy on record as owning the car to find out where he was at the time, even if he bought that car years ago . . . unless they have a report in their system telling them that the car was stolen from him.

Yeah, and when the cops come around you hand them your lawyer's business card and tell them to direct all questions to him. Bye now, because I don't talk to cops in situations like this.
Don't come back without a warrant.

Seems like an unnecessarily hostile amount of trouble to go to. I want to deliberately set up an antagonism of the cops because why? Easier in my eyes to just file a police report when the gun was stolen, so that they don't waste their time bothering me at all.

 

[freyasman]

But have you ever heard of them questioning the original owner about some shooting it was used in?
I haven't.

We know more responsible people most likely so we don't have any personal experience with that. But the fact of the matter is they always make attempts to trace the gun to the suspect. Successful? Probably only part of the time. But if their research leads them to only 10% of the murderers, that's 10% more put in prison we don't have to worry about.

I'm just saying if a pistol is used in a shooting during a carjacking or a robbery, the cops don't go to the guy who bought it 8 years ago and then had it stolen from his truck, and begin treating him as a suspect in the shooting; that doesn't happen.
Unless they actually recover the gun, they can't trace it at all, and they know damn good and well the guy in the suburbs who bought it back when, wasn't involved in some gang beef shooting at a waffle house, or a robbery.

They don't IF they know it was stolen. Without a police report stating that it was, they have no reason to think he doesn't still have it.

It's kinda like cars. If a car is used in a hit-and-run, and the cops find it abandoned a couple of miles away, they're gonna contact the guy on record as owning the car to find out where he was at the time, even if he bought that car years ago . . . unless they have a report in their system telling them that the car was stolen from him.

Yeah, and when the cops come around you hand them your lawyer's business card and tell them to direct all questions to him. Bye now, because I don't talk to cops in situations like this.
Don't come back without a warrant.

Seems like an unnecessarily hostile amount of trouble to go to. I want to deliberately set up an antagonism of the cops because why? Easier in my eyes to just file a police report when the gun was stolen, so that they don't waste their time bothering me at all.

Ask any lawyer, or even any person who has ever dealt with the American "justice" system, if, when the cops come around asking questions about a crime, should you go ahead and just answer all their questions without a lawyer present?

Get back to me and let me know what their answers are.

(I'll bet they'll be unanimous, btw.)

 

[freyasman]

But have you ever heard of them questioning the original owner about some shooting it was used in?
I haven't.

We know more responsible people most likely so we don't have any personal experience with that. But the fact of the matter is they always make attempts to trace the gun to the suspect. Successful? Probably only part of the time. But if their research leads them to only 10% of the murderers, that's 10% more put in prison we don't have to worry about.

I'm just saying if a pistol is used in a shooting during a carjacking or a robbery, the cops don't go to the guy who bought it 8 years ago and then had it stolen from his truck, and begin treating him as a suspect in the shooting; that doesn't happen.
Unless they actually recover the gun, they can't trace it at all, and they know damn good and well the guy in the suburbs who bought it back when, wasn't involved in some gang beef shooting at a waffle house, or a robbery.

They don't IF they know it was stolen. Without a police report stating that it was, they have no reason to think he doesn't still have it.

It's kinda like cars. If a car is used in a hit-and-run, and the cops find it abandoned a couple of miles away, they're gonna contact the guy on record as owning the car to find out where he was at the time, even if he bought that car years ago . . . unless they have a report in their system telling them that the car was stolen from him.

Yeah, and when the cops come around you hand them your lawyer's business card and tell them to direct all questions to him. Bye now, because I don't talk to cops in situations like this.
Don't come back without a warrant.

Seems like an unnecessarily hostile amount of trouble to go to. I want to deliberately set up an antagonism of the cops because why? Easier in my eyes to just file a police report when the gun was stolen, so that they don't waste their time bothering me at all.

Law of Self Defense Principles Softcover – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If I start a thread titled, "School Funding - Should vouchers be allowed?", could we discuss gun control there?

In most any topic one thing leads to another and after a while, It's a totally different discussion. It would be kinda boring to discuss the topic only and probably wouldn't last very long.

 

[JoeB131]

Giving parents choice and vouchers allows them to improve the education of their children.....you want control more than you want actual results......

No, I don't want to piss away money on something that has been proven not to work, for all the reasons stated above you clearly didn't have a good enough education to understand.

Our universities are the best in the world because they actually have to compete for students...the public schools do not....that is why they suck.

First, our universities are not the "Best in the world". We have some good colleges most of us will never attend. We have some okay ones that will get you a decent job after college, and we have some truly awful ones that are scams.

We really can't run our public schools that way.

Special needs? You give them a bigger voucher, you twit......then you will have schools that open up to cater to their needs.....instead of the public schools that warehouse them....you idiot...

Clearly, you don't know the level of work that goes into special needs kids, or how they get an inordinate amount of money spent on them.

By the way, before they started mainstreaming them, that's EXACTLY what they did with them. They warehoused them

Competition makes everything better...from cellphones, to cars to healthcare.....you simply want control ........no matte how many lives the public schools destroy.

Competition does not make everything better.

It often makes things worse as people do a race to the bottom. LIke when Michigan privatized it's waterworks, and the people of Flynt ended up drinking poison.

From Pittsburgh to Flint, the Dire Consequences of Giving Private Companies Responsibility for Ailing Public Water Systems

The private water company Veolia had contracts with both Flint and Pittsburgh around the time that lead levels rose in their drinking water.

theintercept.com

 

[2aguy]

I`ve never known a woman who lived in constant fear of being helplessly raped and murdered. Is this your wife you`re describing?

Actually most women live in fear the rest of their lives after suffering the mental and physical trauma of something like being raped or attempted rape. Before people were allowed to carry in most states, all a woman could do is sit home in the corner and only leave the house without fear when accompanied by a male companion. Do you think that 65 year old lady in NYC that was brutally attacked by that animal won't live in fear the rest of her life? Unfortunately she lives in a commie city and state and would not be able to get a license to carry a firearm.

A few years ago I read a story that our state had more female CCW applicants than male. I say good for them. Nobody male or female should have to live in fear or allow their lives to be ruined because they were a helpless victim.

I hate to break it to guys, but every woman with any sense of self-preservation lives all the time with the fear of being sexually assaulted. I'm not saying we're hyperventilating and freaking out like a herpetophobe stepping on a snake or anything, but it's something that's always there and always factored into our daily decisions.

Ever known a woman who asked a security guard or a male colleague to walk her to her car when she works late? Refused to go for a walk or a jog at night by herself? Went on a first date with a guy and insisted on meeting him at the restaurant rather than having him pick her up at home? Texted or called a family member or friend to let them know where she was if she was going somewhere unusual to her normal routine? I could go on and on listing everyday adjustments any woman with a brain in her head makes to her everyday life because of the ever-present possibility of being assaulted that's in the back of her mind.

Yep.....I understand that, which is why I support he 2nd Amendment....democrats see powerless women as fair game.....which is why they want to keep them unarmed.

 

[2aguy]

No, we don't want more resources drained from the public schools... The problem is that School Choice really doesn't work. Milwaukee tried it. The kids with vouchers did the same as the kids who remained in public schools.

The agenda is that unionized teachers are a powerful force for reform.. and you can't have that.

So where do you get this idea that voucher money comes from public schools? It's a federal voucher just like HUD people get. The public school is still being funded by tax dollars and not one dime less.

Well, sort of. If I understand correctly, how much money a school gets depends on its enrollment. So theoretically, if you remove your kid from the rolls of a public school, they wouldn't be getting funding for that particular student. Of course, there are always more where he came from, so . . .

And with vouchers that changes......the money follows the kid....so if the school sucks, the kids leave and take the money......all the incentive in the world to improve the school since money is now dependent on performance, rather than simple attendance.

 

[2aguy]

If I start a thread titled, "School Funding - Should vouchers be allowed?", could we discuss gun control there?

Joe started this...he likes to derail threads about guns and gun issues.

 

[2aguy]

Giving parents choice and vouchers allows them to improve the education of their children.....you want control more than you want actual results......

No, I don't want to piss away money on something that has been proven not to work, for all the reasons stated above you clearly didn't have a good enough education to understand.

Our universities are the best in the world because they actually have to compete for students...the public schools do not....that is why they suck.

First, our universities are not the "Best in the world". We have some good colleges most of us will never attend. We have some okay ones that will get you a decent job after college, and we have some truly awful ones that are scams.

We really can't run our public schools that way.

Special needs? You give them a bigger voucher, you twit......then you will have schools that open up to cater to their needs.....instead of the public schools that warehouse them....you idiot...

Clearly, you don't know the level of work that goes into special needs kids, or how they get an inordinate amount of money spent on them.

By the way, before they started mainstreaming them, that's EXACTLY what they did with them. They warehoused them

Competition makes everything better...from cellphones, to cars to healthcare.....you simply want control ........no matte how many lives the public schools destroy.

Competition does not make everything better.

It often makes things worse as people do a race to the bottom. LIke when Michigan privatized it's waterworks, and the people of Flynt ended up drinking poison.

From Pittsburgh to Flint, the Dire Consequences of Giving Private Companies Responsibility for Ailing Public Water Systems

The private water company Veolia had contracts with both Flint and Pittsburgh around the time that lead levels rose in their drinking water.

theintercept.com

You can't privatize something that is already screwed up and then blame the private company....and, when you have have the government contracting the work, the level of abuse goes through the roof versus two private companies.....

the problem was the government having anything to do with that.....

 

[JoeB131]

You can't privatize something that is already screwed up and then blame the private company....and, when you have have the government contracting the work, the level of abuse goes through the roof versus two private companies.....

the problem was the government having anything to do with that.....

Uh, who do you think is going to contract the work when you go to vouchers, dummy? Who do you think is going to decide which schools are eligible for voucher programs and which ones aren't?

 

[woodwork201]

In most any topic one thing leads to another and after a while, It's a totally different discussion. It would be kinda boring to discuss the topic only and probably wouldn't last very long.

C'mon; I was being facetious.

 

[Blues Man]

Yeah IDGAF about criminals.

Never will

Good. I'm glad you finally admit that you're not a constitutionalist. Acknowledgement is the first step.

If you victimize fellow citizens then you get what you deserve.

Why the **** should anyone who doesn;t care about the rights of others deserve to have their rights respected?

 

[Blues Man]

Yeah IDGAF about criminals.

Never will

But what you mostly don't care about, regardless of your claims to the contrary, is the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution.

You're wrong again of course.

I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if you or your wife was a victim of a violent crime.

Would you be so keen on letting the violent assholes who raped your wife buy guns when they got out of prison?

Would you be defending the 2nd amendment rights of the 3 or 4 guys who ambushed you and put you in the hospital for a few weeks?

I highly doubt it.

 

[JoeB131]

You're wrong again of course.

I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if you or your wife was a victim of a violent crime.

Would you be so keen on letting the violent assholes who raped your wife buy guns when they got out of prison?

Would you be defending the 2nd amendment rights of the 3 or 4 guys who ambushed you and put you in the hospital for a few weeks?

I highly doubt it.

So we are in agreement that SOME people shouldn't have guns. Awesome.

Either you think gun ownership is a "right", or you think it's a privilege that should be limited by need and responsibility.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here's the standard I would hold.

Are you a cop or a soldier, in a "Well-Regulated Militia"? Nope. No gun for you.

 

[Blues Man]

You're wrong again of course.

I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if you or your wife was a victim of a violent crime.

Would you be so keen on letting the violent assholes who raped your wife buy guns when they got out of prison?

Would you be defending the 2nd amendment rights of the 3 or 4 guys who ambushed you and put you in the hospital for a few weeks?

I highly doubt it.

So we are in agreement that SOME people shouldn't have guns. Awesome.

Either you think gun ownership is a "right", or you think it's a privilege that should be limited by need and responsibility.

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, here's the standard I would hold.

Are you a cop or a soldier, in a "Well-Regulated Militia"? Nope. No gun for you.

When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.

And law abiding civilians have the right to own firearms. I will never agree that they don't.

Commit a violent crime you give up your rights.
Commit a crime with a gun you give up your rights.

 

[JoeB131]

When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.

And law abiding civilians have the right to won firearms. I will never agree that they don't.

Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.

You still have all your constitutional rights. Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Of course you don't.

So either gun ownership is a right or a privilege. If it's a right, everyone should have access to guns. If it's a privilege, then we should limit who gets them.

I'm just for more limits on the privilege than you are.

 

[Blues Man]

When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.

And law abiding civilians have the right to won firearms. I will never agree that they don't.

Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.

You still have all your constitutional rights. Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Of course you don't.

So either gun ownership is a right or a privilege. If it's a right, everyone should have access to guns. If it's a privilege, then we should limit who gets them.

I'm just for more limits on the privilege than you are.

Like I said criminals voluntarily give up their rights. By committing crimes a person has made the choice to violate the rights of fellow citizens.

Anyone who is law abiding has the right to own a firearm. The second you become a convicted criminal you hace voluntarily given up that right.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.

You still have all your constitutional rights. Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Of course you don't.

So either gun ownership is a right or a privilege. If it's a right, everyone should have access to guns. If it's a privilege, then we should limit who gets them.

I'm just for more limits on the privilege than you are.

Gun ownership is a right listed in the US Constitution, therefore it's not a privilege. Driving is a privilege.

In many states you can't vote either if you are a convicted felon. The commies are trying to change that because if criminals could vote, they'll all vote Democrat.

With rights comes responsibility. If you've demonstrated you are incapable of handling responsibility such as voting or firearms, those rights are taken away.

 

[woodwork201]

You're wrong again of course.

I wonder if you'd be saying the same things if you or your wife was a victim of a violent crime.

Would you be so keen on letting the violent assholes who raped your wife buy guns when they got out of prison?

Would you be defending the 2nd amendment rights of the 3 or 4 guys who ambushed you and put you in the hospital for a few weeks?

I highly doubt it.

You're far too easy on rapists. The problem is not whether they buy a gun when they get out of prison; the problem is that they get out of prison. The problem I would have to consider is whether they should be breathing air if they got out of prison. But if a rapist got out of jail and wanted a gun, there's no law that would stop them from getting a gun. Your gun control only stops the truly reformed from having a gun; it doesn't even slow down gun access for the felon that is still criminally inclined.

So many so-called gun rights supporters, self-proclaimed constitutionalists, go along with the left in creating bad laws in an attempt to fix problems that those laws don't really fix. Do you think a ban on gun ownership stops a rapist from owning a gun? If that worked then all we had to do is make rape illegal and, if your comments represent reality rather than example, your wife would not have been raped.

Or, if rape convictions resulted in 20 or 30 years in prison as it did 50 years ago, there'd be far fewer rapes; that is the law that you should be advocating for, not a silly, pointless, completely ineffective, law that claims to, but completely fails to, prevent their access to an inanimate object.

There was a time in this country when rape was a capital offense, punishable by death. That's too much because it incentivizes the rapist to kill their victim but 20 to 30 years would be a great disincentive to breaking the law.

Once again, your words speak loudly. If your "what if" is real, I am sorry for your wife and for you. But that doesn't mean the Government can violate the very Constitution that created it. If you think they can and should then you are not a constitutionalist.

I'm sure you've heard it, possibly even said it: I may hate your speech but I'll fight to the death to defend your right to say it. That's the kind of things that constitutionalists say - and they mean it. If your story is true then I understand, but disagree with, your emotional reaction against rapists, but I still don't understand your stance against felony litterers.

 

[woodwork201]

When you commit a violent crime YOU give up your rights no one takes them from you.

And law abiding civilians have the right to won firearms. I will never agree that they don't.

Not at all. When you are convicted of a crime, you lose some privileges.

You still have all your constitutional rights. Do you lose your right to free speech? To a trial? To be free of unreasonable searches and seizures? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment? Of course you don't.

So either gun ownership is a right or a privilege. If it's a right, everyone should have access to guns. If it's a privilege, then we should limit who gets them.

I'm just for more limits on the privilege than you are.

Like I said criminals voluntarily give up their rights. By committing crimes a person has made the choice to violate the rights of fellow citizens.

Anyone who is law abiding has the right to own a firearm. The second you become a convicted criminal you hace voluntarily given up that right.

I've asked it more than once but you completely ignore it. Does a convicted felon give up his right to a trial by jury of his peers in any future charge? Does he give up his right to free speech? Can he be banned from owning a Bible? The police can search him or his house at will for the rest of his life? No more need for a warrant or probable cause?

I understand your emotional-based views. The point here is that you don't understand them. You have understandable, even if wrong, reactions to crime and experience in your own life but you don't realize, or won't admit, apparently even to yourself, that you are no longer a constitutionalist and you certainly do not support the 2nd Amendment.